THE TEACHERS’ TECHNIQUES IN PROVIDING CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ PRONUNCIATION ERROR

This research aimed to analyse the teachers’ implementation of corrective feedback and to identify the types of corrective feedback provided by teachers on students’ pronunciation errors in the classroom. The writer conducted the research at MAS Darul Ulum Banda Aceh. The participants of the research were 1 and 2 year teachers. The data was collected by doing observations in X and XII classes. The writer found that each of both teachers only used 3 kinds of corrective feedback. The first teacher used recast and metalinguistic while the second teacher used elicitation and clarification request. However, both teachers shared the type of explicit feedback. There are 6 types of corrective feedback proposed by Lyster and Ranta (1997): recast, metalinguistic, clarification request, elicitation, explicit and repetition. The use of each types was different in percentage.


INTRODUCTION
Pronunciation when they are asked to pronounce especially English vowels. The difficulties are due to interference of the mother tongue of the students or the poor guidance from the teachers such as not giving any correction on the students' errors. However, the way of providing correction to the students to foster their improvement without damaging their motivation is being the concern in teaching English. Having errors corrected sometimes can be annoying for students, and such corrections may reduce their keenness on communicating with other students or teachers. On the other hand, if the teachers do not give any corrections on students' errrors, their accuracy would not improve. Students may continue making the same mistakes that teachers have never tried correcting (Truscott, 1996).
The Techniques of Corrective Feedback are divided into two, explicit and implicit. In implicit error correction, teachers do not tell the students directly that they made mistakes, while in explicit correction, the teachers clearly indicate the students errors and provide the correct form. Implicit feedback regularly takes the shape of recast where "the teacher first repeated a learner utterance with an error, highlighting the error through emphasis, and then, if this did not result in a learner self-correction, the teacher recasts the utterance using the correct form" (Ellis, 2008). Tunstall and Gipps (1996)  Furthermore, Lightbown & Spada (1999) define corrective feedback is an indication to the learner that his or her use of the target language is incorrect. This indication can be given in various ways. Thus, corrective feedback can be defined as an information to the students regarding their linguistics errors. It helps students to gain more information about what they can do to improve and progress.

Types of Corrective Feedback Technique
Making correction by giving feedback is used by the teacher in order to reduce errors made by the students in pronunciation. If the teacher gives feedback more, it will help them to be more accurate in their own use of the language. When the teacher gives feedback, he or she should have different kinds of correction techniques or strategies.
According to Lyster & Ranta (as cited in Rezaei, 2011), there are various strategies that can be used to provide corrective feedback : recast, metalinguistic, clarification request, elicitation, explicit feedback and repetition. All of these techniques are placed in an explicit-implicit continuum. The description of each types will be elaborated below : Recast is the teacher's reformulation of all or part of a students' utterance minus the error.

Student :
She watches/z/ TV every day. (Phonological error) Teacher : She watches/iz/ TV every day. (Recasts) (Lyster and Ranta, 1997) b. Metalinguistic Metalinguistic feedback contains either comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the students' utterance without explicitly providing the correct form.

S :
The teacher teaches/z/ English. (Phonological error) T : Is it "teaches/z/" or "teaches/iz/?". (Metalinguistic feedback) (Lyster and Ranta, 1997) c.Clarification request Spada and Frohlich (as cited in Lyster & Ranta, 1997) state that clarification indicates to students either that their utterance has been misunderstood by the teacher or that the utterance is ill-formed in some way is that a repetition or a reformulation is required. A clarification request includes phrases such as "Pardon me?" or "Excuse me?".

S :
Ali goes/iz/ to school every morning. (Phonological error) T : Pardon? (Clarification request) (Lyster and Ranta, 1997) d. Elicitation Elicitation in a correction technique that prompts the learners to self-correct and may be accomplished in one of three following ways.
First, teacher strategically pause to provide the students time to answer.
Second, through the use of open question. The last one is request for reformulation of an ill-formed utterance. Therefore, elicitation falls in the middle of explicit and implicit continuum of corrective feedback.  Nunan (1992) states qualitative methods concern with the understanding of human behaviour from the actor's own frame of reference, explaratory, descriptive and process-oriented. Therefore, the study applied the qualitative approach to explore the problems. The qualitative research aims to understand something specifically, not always looking for the cause and effect of something, and to deepen comprehension (Moleong, 2009).
The writer used non-participant observation as the method of collecting data.
Non-participant observation, as Liu and Maitlis (2010) states, is often used in tangent with other data collection methods, and can offer a more "nuanced and dynamic" appreciation of situations that cannot be as easily captured through other methods.

B. Sampling
2 teachers were part of the study. The pruposes of picking up two teachers to focus deeply on teachers' corrective feedback techniques of the 1 st and 2 nd year students' pronunciation errors.

C. Data Collection
The observations of the English teaching and learning process were happening in the 1 st year class (the writer took only one class) and 2 nd year class. The duration of English class in each meeting was 80 minutes to 120 minutes. The writer did more than 15 times of observations in approximately 3 months. In addition, the researcher noted particular parts during teachers' correction of students' mispronunciation only, highlighted the corrective feedback from teachers, and grouped the techniques or types of corrective feedback into a table. Lastly, the findings were divided into themes of the JL3T Journal of Linguistics, Literature & Language Teaching types of teachers' corrective feedback promoted by Lyster and Ranta (1997) and established the conclusion.

Recast
Recast is teacher's implicit correction of all or part of learner's incorrect utterance (Lyster and Ranta, 1997). Mrs. X taught about hortatory exposition text. She asked some students to read each one or two sentences of the text. After reading, the teacher corrected a student's pronunciation error.
S : When the authorities notice /noutais/ the group is here again, they advise /ədvɪs/ them to go back to hometown.
T : When the authorities notice /'noʊ.tɪs/ the group is here again, they advise /əd'vaɪz/ them to go back to hometown. Because of the incomplete knowledge of the target language, the student produced mispronunciation in saying /noutais/ for the word "notice" that should be pronounced as /'noʊ.tɪs/. Another error was "advise" which mispronounced as /ədvɪs/. Mrs. X let the student know what was right and what was wrong by providing the corrective feedback. She reformulated the sentence and gave more emphasize in her tone when saying the correct pronunciation of the words "notice" and "advise" to confirm that was the correct one and what the student pronounced previously was incorrect.

Metalinguistic feedback
As mentioned in chapter 2, metalinguistic feedback defined by Lyster & Ranta (1997) as a teacher's comment or question related to (Observation 2, 7 February 2017) The student produced an error when saying word "appeared" which should be pronounced as /ə'pird/. It might be caused by student's difficulty in pronouncing -ed form, so, she/he pronounced it as a basic form. The teacher questioned the student the right pronunciation by providing two options so that the student knew she/he made an error and corrected her/himself.

Clarification request
Teacher indicated that student's utterance was incorrect and requested an explanation about that wrong utterance (Spada and Frohlich, 1995, as cited in Lyster and Ranta, 1997). At that time, Miss. Y gave an exercise to the students. they were about to have an examination in few days.
Miss. Y wrote some sentences on the whiteboard and asked students to read. The student made an error in pronouncing the word "worse". Miss.
Y, the teacher, requested her/him to repeat. The student realised that she/he mispronunced the word "worse" and tried to correct herself or himself but she or he kept making the error. Then, Miss. Y gave the right pronunciation to the student.

Elicitation
In chapter 2, the writer explained that teacher can elicit the correct form of the utterance by three ways ; giving pause strategically to provide the student time to answer, asking an open question, and requesting the student to reformulate an ill-formed utterance. In this teaching and learning process, Miss. Y taught about explanatory text. She asked some students to read a passage in their textbook. A student made an error while reading the text, then Miss. Y corrected her/him. The error formulated by student here because of she/he did not know the right pronunciation of the word "different". To correct the student's mispronunciation, the teacher strategically gave a pause and gave student time to answer. The student responded by giving same mispronunciation. The teacher, Miss. Y, helped the student in correcting the error by giving the right pronunciation.

Explicit feedback
Explicit feedback defined as teacher explicitly stated that student's utterance was incorrect then teacher provided the correct one. At that time, Miss. Y asked students to answer some questions from their textbook. It was about the differences between recount and narrative text.
S : The structure /struktur/ of Recount text is orientation, event, and reorientation.

(Observation 1, 24 February 2017)
When the student mispronounced the word "structure", Miss. Y explicitly corrected the student's error. Explicit feedback was different from recast. In explicit, teacher directly corrected the student's error by giving the perfect pronunciation. While in recast, as we can see in the previous section, the teacher did not obviously show that the student's utterance was pronounced incorrectly. Instead, the teacher simply stressed her tone when saying the correct pronunciation.

The quantity of teachers' corrective feedback occurence in the class
This was the result of the writer's research during 14 observations in MAS Darul Ulum. The quantity of each techniques occurence in classes can be seen in table 1 and table 2.  Table 1 The quantity of Mrs. X's corrective feedback occurence in the class.

Recast
Meta-Linguistic Clarification Request Elicitation Explicit Feedback Repetition Statistically, the Recast reached 23% of occurence in class. Indeed, Recast appeared for 3 times during the observations. In fact, the teacher plainly repeated the student's utterance with the perfect pronunciation without telling the error. She let the student recognise it by him/herself.
The second technique, metalinguistic, achieved for 8% occurence in class. It happened only once during the writer's 11 observations. Mrs. X questioned the student's utterance to indicate that she/he made an error without clearly giving the correct pronunciation. The teacher let the student find the answer of mispronounced word by himself or herself.
The technique that got the highest percentage of occurence was explicit feedback. It appeared 9 times in the writer's observations. This result showed that the teacher preferred to correct students' error using explicit feedback rather than the other techniques.  Miss Y did not explicitly tell the student that she/he made an error. Instead, the teacher gave the pause and let student think the answer.
The last feedback that occured very often during teaching and learning process is explicit feedback. It obtained 64% of occurence and it was the highest percentage amongst all techniques. Like Mrs. X, Miss Y did preferred explicit feedback technique to provide the correct pronunciation to her student. Also, the result showed that the teacher focus on the accuracy of pronunciation than on enhancing students' ability to detect their error by themselves.
The chart of the quantity of Miss Y's corrective feedback in her class was provided below. Both teachers only used 3 different types of corrective feedback set out by Lyster and Ranta (1997). Explicit correction had the highest percentage of 69% in Mrs. X's classes and 64% in Miss. Y's class. The second feedback used by Mrs. X was recast with 23% while Miss. Y used elicitation feedback with 27%. The least percentage in Mrs. X's classes was metalinguistic with only 8%. Meanwhile, Teacher Y made clarification request as the feedback that rarely used to correct her students' errors. It got 9% of occurence in her class. Both metalinguistic and clarification request only used once by teachers during the writer's 14 observations.